2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) EUROPHYT has proved to be a useful tool for the exchange of information among MS on interceptions of HOs. However, this mainly applies to imports, as there is no legal obligation in place for systematic <strong>report</strong>ing of findings in plant material from other MS. It is recommended therefore that the use of EUROPHYT for compulsory notification should be extended from trade with third countries to intra-Community movements. Another set of improvements is suggested in order to make the system more user-friendly (e.g. improved search engines), to increase readability and usability of data for inspection targeting (e.g. data elaboration) and to increase the usefulness for signalling upcoming threats (e.g. modification of information required). 3.10.4 Communication and consultation EQ15: How effective is the functioning of the CPHR as for communication and consultation? The effectiveness of the communication and consultation activities that are taking place in the context of the implementation of the CPHR were analysed in terms of the extent to which stakeholder and sectoral interests are taken into account, and the adequacy of communication from MS and the Commission to stakeholders both within the EU and in third countries. On a more general level, one of the clear outcomes of the evaluation is the low level of public and political awareness in relation to plant health issues. In particular, it was noted that limited resources are devoted both at national and EU level for plant health, which is related, among others, to the low awareness and visibility of the policy among public. Public awareness should be promoted among stakeholders, in order to improve early detection of HOs and increase effectiveness of eradication campaigns. It should also be promoted among the more general public, in order to increase understanding of ‖painful‖ plant health eradication measures and to create responsible behaviour of the public towards introduction of HOs and IAS. General public would be clearly more involved in relation to these HOs, whose introduction and spread causes large economic impact due to their amenity value (e.g. the case of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Spain and in various regions in Italy). This point also touches upon the role of plant health provisions for public goods values. These considerations were clearly made also during the conference of February 199 . In particular, the importance of public awareness was highlighted and its influence in promoting political awareness and political support. This in turn would help plant health authorities competing successfully for resources and would facilitate the establishment of ‖difficult‖ legislation, while increasing the position of plant health versus other political considerations and creating greater accountability of plant health authorities. 199 See presentation of Ralf Lopian: Management of Emerging Plant Health Threats FCEC 188
Evaluation of the Community Plant Health Regime: Final Report DG SANCO Evaluation Framework Contract Lot 3 (Food Chain) Effectiveness of communication and consultation procedures a) To what extent does the CPHR take into account the interests of stakeholders and sectors affected by the current policy? Extent to which MS CAs consider that the CPHR takes into account interests of stakeholders and sectors affected by the current policy: - Fully (10 out of 24, 1 do not know) - Partly (13 out of 24, 1 do not know). Extent to which stakeholders consider that the CPHR takes into account interests of stakeholders and sectors affected by the current policy: - Fully (2 out of 24, 3 do not know) - Partly (15 out of 24, 3 do not know). b) Is the information and communication on the CPHR provided by Commission / MS authorities adequate? Information/communication to EU stakeholders Extent to which MS CAs consider that information and communication to EU stakeholders is adequate: - Fully (15 of 25, 4 do not know) - Partly (4 of 25, 4 do not know) Extent to which stakeholders consider that information and communication to EU stakeholders is adequate: - Fully (5 out of 23, 3 do not know) - Partly (13 out of 23, 3 do not know). Information/communication on import requirements to TC trading partners (CAs) Extent to which MS CAs consider that information and communication to TCs is adequate - Fully (9 of 25, 4 do not know) - Partly (11 of 25, 4 do not know) Extent to which stakeholders consider that information and communication to TCs is adequate: - Partly (13 out of 23, 10 do not know). c) Are import requirements under the CPHR clear to TCs trading partners, especially in the developing countries? Extent to which MS CAs consider that import requirements are clear to TCs: - Fully (4 of 25, 3 do not know) - Partly (11 of 25, 3 do not know) Extent to which MS CAs consider that import requirements are clear to TCs: - Partly (13 of 23, 8 do not know). Extent to which the interests of stakeholders and sectors involved are taken into account in the CPHR and adequacy of communication from MS authorities and the Commission to the stakeholders: Respondents to the general survey indicated that a good level of consultation with stakeholders exists at EU at MS level, and it is undertaken prior to any change in the legislation. Since 2009 a Working Group on Plant Health is in place within the Advisory Group on the Food Chain, Animal and Plant Health. There is also a quite general agreement that inputs of stakeholders are taken into account when new elements are being proposed. However, some MS pointed out that this consultation is limited, in that: The involvement of stakeholders so far has been limited to EU wide organisations; Consultation at EU level is not well established, and certain sectors are not consulted at all. FCEC 189
Page 1 and 2:
I European Commission Directorate G
Page 3 and 4:
Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: D
Page 5 and 6:
Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
7. Implementation of control and em
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Table 1-4: Obligations, tasks, volu
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Nb Title of the obligation of the P
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Protection of the EU against the ha
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 3-3: Definitions of potentia
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Source: FCEC based on general surve
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
3.5.7 Conclusions on performance of
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 185 and 186: 3.8 Export, transit and re-export i
Page 221: Evaluation of the Community Plant H
Page 231 and 232: PWN Key host plant(s) Estimated pot
Page 241 and 242: Table 3-20 Estimated potential bene
Page 267 and 268: Table 3-33: Completed EU standard r
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Table 3-36: Key conclusions from th
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Policy area Evaluation Question (a)
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Source: FCEC, based on results of t
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Eichhornia crassipes (aquatic plant
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
Page 379 and 380:
Page 381 and 382:
Page 383 and 384:
Page 385 and 386:
Page 387 and 388:
Page 389 and 390:
Page 391 and 392:
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
Page 401 and 402:
Page 403 and 404:
Page 405 and 406:
Page 407 and 408:
Page 409 and 410:
Page 411 and 412:
Page 413 and 414:
Page 415 and 416:
Page 417 and 418:
Page 419 and 420:
Options (most recommended) 6.Emerge
show all

2454 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?